What is going on?

[John Simkin]

The administrators (Andy and John S.) and moderators (Kathy, John G., Stephen, Antii, Gary, Evan, Don) receive a great number of complaints about member’s postings. Some mornings when I get up I get a message that my mailbox is full because there have been so many complaints overnight. We have tried to deal with these complaints as fairly as possible but we are constantly accused of bias. These complaints in themselves are often abusive and it has taken a great deal of persuasion on my part to stop them from resigning from what is a thankless task. In fact, it has been argued that the moderation system is itself a conspiracy. It has also been claimed that the majority of the administrators and moderators are anti-conspiracy theorists. This is not true, although the majority of moderators do not see everything as a conspiracy. The reason that these people were selected as moderators is that they were always polite to people they disagree with. However, to those who appear to be only able to argue their case by being abusive, they consider all other members, as being “anti-conspiracy”.

Evan had the idea that if we made one of these aggressive members as a moderator, they would see what it is like to be on the receiving end of this abuse. It might even convince them that the administrator and moderators were not part of a conspiracy. Evan suggested Peter Lemkin as a moderator. This was a brave suggestion as Evan had been a regular victim of Peter’s abusive behaviour. I foolishly thought this was a good idea. So did most of the other moderators. However, right from the beginning Andy predicted that it would end in tears. Although we realised it was a risky decision, on a majority vote, he was elected as a moderator.

It appeared to work at first but after a few weeks we began to get complaints about what Peter was saying to other members by PM. Peter was also breaking forum rules by questioning the motives of individual posters. This was usually targeted against new members who told me that they were now reluctant to post. Battle hardened members such as Len Colby can take the flack but new members cannot. They were also confused by the fact that it was a “moderator” who was behaving that way.

Andy took the view that Peter should be removed as a moderator. However, I argued that he should be given another chance. I informed Peter that we were going to take a vote on removing him as a moderator. I and I expect other moderators, now received a succession of abusive emails from Peter. This included threats of legal action against us for spreading rumours about him being guilty of sexually harassing a female member of the forum. In fact, it was Jack White, one of Peter’s supporters, who first mentioned this on the forum. Peter also threatened to remove all the posts he had posted on the forum. Peter also threatened to persuade members to leave the Education Forum and join the Deep Politics Forum. At this point I began to wonder if this is what this has been about all along. Andy also drew our attention to what Peter was saying about individual moderators on the Deep Politics Forum.

Despite these emails I did not change my views on whether Peter should remain as moderator. The majority agreed with me. However, these abusive emails continued. So did the attacks on the Deep Politics Forum including the description of us being a “slime-pit”. I therefore decided to call for another vote on Peter as a moderator. This time, only Evan, Don and myself voted for him to stay.

This triggered off more abusive emails from Peter. Even though I voted for him to stay as a moderator, I was also on the receiving end of numerous threats. You can imagine what the moderators who voted on his removal received. Peter is also threatening the Forum administrators with legal action. This appears to cover several issues but it did include postings about the claims of sexual harassment.

Tim Gratz threatened legal action against the Forum a few years ago. As a result he was also denied posting rights. The same thing will happen to anyone else who threatens me with legal action.

There was a case recently of a Forum owner who was successfully sued for a large sum of money after a member had posted comments about another member’s sex life. The judge pointed out that the Forum owner lost the case because they did not delete the offensive post when the member first made the complaint. Therefore, we have no choice but to delete all those threads where these accusations have been made.

I know Peter’s friends will be very upset by him being removed as a moderator. As a friend they will not have been on the receiving end of his abusive emails. However, this is the democratic decision that has been made and there will be no turning back. If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum.

[Dean Hagerman]

If you don’t like it, you are free to join Peter on his Deep Politics Forum.

Wow

[Guest Stephen Turner]

. It has also been claimed that the majority of the administrators and moderators are anti-conspiracy theorists.

This is the strangest bit of the whole sad saga. john Gerraty has done some stirling work in both JFK and RFK, Antti largely confines himself to JFK, but believes in a conspiracy, same with Kathy. And I think my posts in this section speak for themselves. we just, as a group, don't believe that EVERTHING is a conspiracy. Well, apart from Capitalism of course.

[Len Colby]

I think its obvious Peter was unfit to be a moderator and if allowed posting rights be under moderation. The only question be should be allowed to post at all?

That said I think blocking his IP and erasing his messages a bit over the top.The latter for better or worse are part of the forum's history and many old threads will loose their context. It also fuels martyr status. I think both measures should be undone.